4 ms·

Goals should be realistic. Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal o

Goals should be realistic. Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal of 200lbs, and then telling themselves in front of the mirror every extra 10lb - "I'm going to stop eating junk food today! No, really, this is the day!" It's a cognitive failure to adequately process signals that the real physical world is sending to you. Or measurements that you take from the real world. We _should_ be making things better, yes. But setting an arbitrary goal isn't helpful. You know what would be helpful? Just giving ever person who's considering a solar project a much larger tax break than currently exists. Expand community solar programs for medium-size installations up to 2MW. Subsidize energy storage installations to complement that installed solar. Anyone who's advocating for targeting an ambitious goal is missing the point completely. If that was helpful, why not just say we're targeting 0C? In fact, let's target -1C and shoot extra energy into space. We might even discover some cool tech this way.

gibolt 4y ago
The alternative is a higher number, and then continuously not doing anything by pushing it into the future, eventually blowing past it anyway
kitkat_new 4y ago
Well, the goals were realistic, and only became unrealistic, because action was lacking... and is still lacking. People are being told technology will solve the problem, you can do x only if the alternative has at least the same advantages and no more disadvantages and you can't do y, because 'freedom'. (oh and did I forget 'communism'?) 1,5 degrees aren't an arbitrary goal either, at least to climate scientists: four tipping points are triggered at about that temperature. https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/1616477248374046725 https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/16164772483740467...
mlyle 4y ago
Really, the goal needs to be to minimize it to whatever we can attain. There's some really bad redline some place past 1.5C. Putting the goal possibly to the right of that redline (and possibly blowing past it anyways) is not good. 1.5C is a decent benchmark because it lets us measure various scales of intervention against it.
tiborsaas 4y ago
The problem with a "relaxed" or "realistic" goal is that it will make us lazy. If we set a goal of 1.5C which we probably won't meet then at least we are able to tell people what would happen when we reach that goal. Maybe then when someone adds 0.5C to the new target would take things more seriously. I find this a sad dilemma. We want to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, but we are more worried about crashing the economy.
- nradov 4y ago
  If we crash the economy then we will lose the surplus capacity to address climate change, and people will keep burning fossil fuels just to survive. Concerns about a 1.5 °C (or whatever number) goal several decades in the future are meaningless if you don't have a way to get to work and your home is freezing cold today.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > If we crash the economy You're assuming that a drastic response to stop climate change will crash the economy more than climate change itself will, which is a highly dubious proposition given that many countries (e.g. Denmark) are case studies that show the feasibility and relative ease of the transition (relative to climate change itself).
    - nradov 4y ago
      Denmark hasn't done much significant about climate change. Like many other wealthy countries their efforts have been more about symbolism and political virtue signaling without addressing the core issues or making any drastic changes. Much of their food, energy, and other products is still produced using fossil fuels in foreign countries and then imported. To be clear, I think that every country should do more and something is better than nothing. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the minor changes made by Denmark are sufficient, or that they could even be replicated in most other countries. Our physical stuff still has to be made somewhere.
      - 4y ago
nedt 4y ago
If you make the speed limit for cars 55mph people will still got a bit faster, 60mph, 65mph. But almost no one would be driving 85mph. But if you say "nah people drive 65mph anyway, let's be realistic and make the the speed limit" they will go 75mph and more. So if you want to not reach much more than 1.5°C, let's say 2°C or 2.5°C, you need to be realistic and set a lower goal. We will always be above any goal.

gibolt 4y ago

The alternative is a higher number, and then continuously not doing anything by pushing it into the future, eventually blowing past it anyway

kitkat_new 4y ago

Well, the goals were realistic, and only became unrealistic, because action was lacking... and is still lacking. People are being told technology will solve the problem, you can do x only if the alternative has at least the same advantages and no more disadvantages and you can't do y, because 'freedom'. (oh and did I forget 'communism'?) 1,5 degrees aren't an arbitrary goal either, at least to climate scientists: four tipping points are triggered at about that temperature. https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/1616477248374046725 https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/16164772483740467...

mlyle 4y ago

Really, the goal needs to be to minimize it to whatever we can attain. There's some really bad redline some place past 1.5C. Putting the goal possibly to the right of that redline (and possibly blowing past it anyways) is not good. 1.5C is a decent benchmark because it lets us measure various scales of intervention against it.

tiborsaas 4y ago

The problem with a "relaxed" or "realistic" goal is that it will make us lazy. If we set a goal of 1.5C which we probably won't meet then at least we are able to tell people what would happen when we reach that goal. Maybe then when someone adds 0.5C to the new target would take things more seriously. I find this a sad dilemma. We want to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, but we are more worried about crashing the economy.

nradov 4y ago
If we crash the economy then we will lose the surplus capacity to address climate change, and people will keep burning fossil fuels just to survive. Concerns about a 1.5 °C (or whatever number) goal several decades in the future are meaningless if you don't have a way to get to work and your home is freezing cold today.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > If we crash the economy You're assuming that a drastic response to stop climate change will crash the economy more than climate change itself will, which is a highly dubious proposition given that many countries (e.g. Denmark) are case studies that show the feasibility and relative ease of the transition (relative to climate change itself).
  - nradov 4y ago
    Denmark hasn't done much significant about climate change. Like many other wealthy countries their efforts have been more about symbolism and political virtue signaling without addressing the core issues or making any drastic changes. Much of their food, energy, and other products is still produced using fossil fuels in foreign countries and then imported. To be clear, I think that every country should do more and something is better than nothing. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the minor changes made by Denmark are sufficient, or that they could even be replicated in most other countries. Our physical stuff still has to be made somewhere.
    - 4y ago

nedt 4y ago

If you make the speed limit for cars 55mph people will still got a bit faster, 60mph, 65mph. But almost no one would be driving 85mph. But if you say "nah people drive 65mph anyway, let's be realistic and make the the speed limit" they will go 75mph and more. So if you want to not reach much more than 1.5°C, let's say 2°C or 2.5°C, you need to be realistic and set a lower goal. We will always be above any goal.